DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brossard (US 7232000).
Re Clm 1: Brossard discloses (figs 22a, 22b; and also fig 26) a power transmission apparatus comprising: a wheel hub (19, fig 1); an outer race (175, fig 22a/b; and 250, fig 26); a first inner race (right side inner race connected to shaft 10) combined with the outer race to constitute a first constant velocity joint (homokinetic); a second inner race (left side inner race connected to shaft 12) combined with the outer race to constitute a second constant velocity joint; a shaft (10) coupled to the first inner race so as to transmit rotation to the first inner race; a stem (12) coupled to the second inner race and the wheel hub (as disclosed and shown in at least fig 1) so as to receive rotation from the second inner race and to transmit the same to the wheel hub; and an elastic body (178, in figs 22a/b; and spring 262 in fig 26) configured to elastically support the stem or the shaft relative to the outer race.
Re Clm 2: Brossard discloses a support plate (central dividing walls, including 254; fig 26) fixed to the outer race, wherein the elastic body elastically supports the stem or the shaft relative to the support plate (on first side).
Re Clm 3: Brossard discloses the elastic body is a coil spring (fig 26).
Re Clm 4: Brossard discloses a fixing portion (central dividing walls, including 254; see fig 26) fixed to the outer race, wherein the elastic body is fixed to the fixing portion (on right side dividing wall) to elastically support the stem or the shaft.
Re Clm 6: Brossard discloses wherein each of the first and second constant velocity joints are implemented as a fixed ball type constant velocity joint or a sliding ball type constant velocity joint (figs 22a/b).
Re Clm 8: Brossard discloses wherein the first and second constant velocity joints have different sizes (the right and left sides of the joint have a different shape to accommodate the fixed and sliding type.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brossard (US 7232000).
Re Clm 5: Brossard fails to disclose that the material of the elastic body (262, fig 26) is rubber or plastic. Examiner notes that while Brossard is silent with respect to the coil spring material, rubber or plastic compression springs are well-known in the art for providing a lightweight, corrosion-resistant, and non-conductive alternative to traditional steel springs. Examiner further notes that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the spring of Brossard to be made of rubber or plastic, as is known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a lightweight, corrosion-resistant, and non-conductive alternative to traditional steel springs
Re Clm 7: Brossard discloses multiple embodiments of tripod type and ball type constant velocity joints. Examiner notes that Brossard discloses that the sliding ball-type CV joint could be used in the configuration shown in Figure 2. Examiner notes that Brossard fails to explicitly disclose or show wherein one of the first and second constant velocity joints are implemented as a fixed ball type constant velocity joint, and the other is implemented as a sliding ball type constant velocity joint.
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the tripod-type CV joint, shown in figure 26, with the known ball-type CV joints as shown in figure 22 with a reasonable expectation of success for the well-known purpose of providing a wider articulation angle. Examiner notes that providing the ball-type CV joint structure in the configuration of figure 26 would result in the limitations of claim 8, wherein one of the first and second constant velocity joints are implemented as a fixed ball type constant velocity joint, and the other is implemented as a sliding ball type constant velocity joint.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights